From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Tetsuya Mukawa <mukawa@igel.co.jp>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] vhost: Fix reset_owner message handling
 not to clear callfd
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2015 13:42:49 +0900
Message-ID: <5653EAC9.80704@igel.co.jp>
References: <1447914206-18369-1-git-send-email-mukawa@igel.co.jp>
 <1447924020-26894-1-git-send-email-mukawa@igel.co.jp>
 <20151120112125.GA2325@yliu-dev.sh.intel.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: dev@dpdk.org, ann.zhuangyanying@huawei.com
To: Yuanhan Liu <yuanhan.liu@linux.intel.com>
Return-path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from mail-pa0-f52.google.com (mail-pa0-f52.google.com
 [209.85.220.52]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5414E374E
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Tue, 24 Nov 2015 05:42:51 +0100 (CET)
Received: by pacdm15 with SMTP id dm15so8435738pac.3
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Mon, 23 Nov 2015 20:42:50 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <20151120112125.GA2325@yliu-dev.sh.intel.com>
List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/options/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/listinfo/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org
Sender: "dev" <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>

On 2015/11/20 20:21, Yuanhan Liu wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 06:07:00PM +0900, Tetsuya Mukawa wrote:
>> The patch fixes reset_owner message handling not to clear callfd,
>> because callfd will be valid while connection is establihed.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Tetsuya Mukawa <mukawa@igel.co.jp>
> ....
>>  
>>  /*
>> @@ -467,6 +486,7 @@ static int
>>  reset_owner(struct vhost_device_ctx ctx)
>>  {
>>  	struct virtio_net *dev;
>> +	uint32_t i;
>>  
>>  	dev = get_device(ctx);
>>  	if (dev == NULL)
>> @@ -475,7 +495,19 @@ reset_owner(struct vhost_device_ctx ctx)
>>  	if (dev->flags & VIRTIO_DEV_RUNNING)
>>  		notify_destroy_device(dev);
>>  
>> -	cleanup_device(dev);
> I would suggest to introduce the destory flag to cleanup_device() as
> well,  so that we don't have to unfold the cleanup_device code here.
>
> (BTW, I should've reviewed this patch this morning, but I was busy).

Thanks, I will submit it again.

Tetsuya